The Debates: Winner-Take-All
I think Kerry won last night’s debate, hands down, despite the fact that Bush turned in his best performance. Unfortunately for the president, that's not saying much.
Inexplicably reprising Al Gore’s “three faces” debate performance from 2000, Bush tried on an odd “just keep grinnin’” persona that worked only marginally better than his strange “charge around the stage and yell” persona from the town hall debate. Both, of course, were far superior to the president’s disastrous and troubling first-debate "furious George" persona. Kerry, by contrast, was solid on all three occasions. Calm and collected, much warmer than expected, in command of facts, and generally, far more presidential than the president.
An observer who is neutral on the issues can now look at Kerry and say, “I can believe this guy as President,” while looking at Bush and saying, “I can’t believe this guy is the President!”
After the debates, Kerry seems a much warmer, likeable, albeit serious, person than I had thought of him before, and also compared with Bush. I did not see warm and likeable. I saw cold and strange. Anyway, there have been three winning challengers in the era of presidential debates (Carter 1976, Reagan 1980, Clinton 1992), and all three helped themselves in the debates by being seen alongside the president and measuring up against the incumbent. But none of those three so clearly "out-presidentialed" the president the way Kerry did.
Substantively, Bush didn’t really lay a glove on Kerry where it mattered, which was tagging him with the liberal label, which is apparently going to be the president’s stretch-run strategy. So the caricature he will draw of Kerry the liberal will not have much resonance with those who saw the real Kerry during the debates. I think Kerry goes on to victory from here. It just doesn’t seem credible to me that undecideds will not break his way and that the GOP GOTV machine will outwork the Democrats. Oh, and P.S. -- I've always thought Karl Rove was overrated.
Here are some snippets from around the blogosphere:
Noam Scheiber: I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history. I figured that even if the race got close--or, God forbid, Kerry surged to a late lead--Rove et al. would pull some dirty trick and that would be that. This may still happen--the forthcoming anti-Kerry "documentary" being exhibit A in this brief. But, after last night, I'm not sure it matters. Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.
Tom Schaller on Bush’s three faces:
Bush Version 1 was The Pouter;
Bush Version 2 was The Shouter; and
Bush Version 3 was The Doubter.
Version 1 and 2 have been thoroughly discussed, so let me clarify the third label by reminding people to go back and look at how Kerry hammered him on assault weapons and on employment. Bush reflexively started incongruously talking about No Child Left Behind in response to the latter; heck, I'm surprised he didn't try to work in NCLB as somehow a solution to the assault weapons problem. A giant, unfunded federal mandate for testing, but not resourcing our children's schools - it's the panacea to all America's problems! He has serious doubts about almost all of his policies, and it shows. That's why he's only comfortable talking about himself and how great a leader he is, in the abstract. When he looks more carefully, even he doubts the claims he's been trotted out there to make. (Eye dart, semi-wink, phony smile.)
Matthew Yglesias: A clear win for John Kerry. The reason, I think, is that even though both sides won some rounds, Kerry won the important rounds, on health care and jobs. Especially on jobs. It's easy for the professional media to overlook the extent to which jobs overshadow talk about, say, the deficit since, by definition, media professionals are not unemployed. Nor do media professionals live in the areas of the country that are afflicted by job losses. But in Ohio, West Virginia, and elsewhere that stuff's a huge deal and all Bush said to people who are hurting is that they should go back to school. It's pretty insulting for a president (especially this president) to suggest that the reason folks are struggling is that they're too dumb.
From the American Prospect's Tapped: BOTOX? Curiously, George W. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack....Could it be that the Prez got a hit of Botox to freeze his "sneer muscle" before the debate? Just curious.
Inexplicably reprising Al Gore’s “three faces” debate performance from 2000, Bush tried on an odd “just keep grinnin’” persona that worked only marginally better than his strange “charge around the stage and yell” persona from the town hall debate. Both, of course, were far superior to the president’s disastrous and troubling first-debate "furious George" persona. Kerry, by contrast, was solid on all three occasions. Calm and collected, much warmer than expected, in command of facts, and generally, far more presidential than the president.
An observer who is neutral on the issues can now look at Kerry and say, “I can believe this guy as President,” while looking at Bush and saying, “I can’t believe this guy is the President!”
After the debates, Kerry seems a much warmer, likeable, albeit serious, person than I had thought of him before, and also compared with Bush. I did not see warm and likeable. I saw cold and strange. Anyway, there have been three winning challengers in the era of presidential debates (Carter 1976, Reagan 1980, Clinton 1992), and all three helped themselves in the debates by being seen alongside the president and measuring up against the incumbent. But none of those three so clearly "out-presidentialed" the president the way Kerry did.
Substantively, Bush didn’t really lay a glove on Kerry where it mattered, which was tagging him with the liberal label, which is apparently going to be the president’s stretch-run strategy. So the caricature he will draw of Kerry the liberal will not have much resonance with those who saw the real Kerry during the debates. I think Kerry goes on to victory from here. It just doesn’t seem credible to me that undecideds will not break his way and that the GOP GOTV machine will outwork the Democrats. Oh, and P.S. -- I've always thought Karl Rove was overrated.
Here are some snippets from around the blogosphere:
Noam Scheiber: I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history. I figured that even if the race got close--or, God forbid, Kerry surged to a late lead--Rove et al. would pull some dirty trick and that would be that. This may still happen--the forthcoming anti-Kerry "documentary" being exhibit A in this brief. But, after last night, I'm not sure it matters. Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.
Tom Schaller on Bush’s three faces:
Bush Version 1 was The Pouter;
Bush Version 2 was The Shouter; and
Bush Version 3 was The Doubter.
Version 1 and 2 have been thoroughly discussed, so let me clarify the third label by reminding people to go back and look at how Kerry hammered him on assault weapons and on employment. Bush reflexively started incongruously talking about No Child Left Behind in response to the latter; heck, I'm surprised he didn't try to work in NCLB as somehow a solution to the assault weapons problem. A giant, unfunded federal mandate for testing, but not resourcing our children's schools - it's the panacea to all America's problems! He has serious doubts about almost all of his policies, and it shows. That's why he's only comfortable talking about himself and how great a leader he is, in the abstract. When he looks more carefully, even he doubts the claims he's been trotted out there to make. (Eye dart, semi-wink, phony smile.)
Matthew Yglesias: A clear win for John Kerry. The reason, I think, is that even though both sides won some rounds, Kerry won the important rounds, on health care and jobs. Especially on jobs. It's easy for the professional media to overlook the extent to which jobs overshadow talk about, say, the deficit since, by definition, media professionals are not unemployed. Nor do media professionals live in the areas of the country that are afflicted by job losses. But in Ohio, West Virginia, and elsewhere that stuff's a huge deal and all Bush said to people who are hurting is that they should go back to school. It's pretty insulting for a president (especially this president) to suggest that the reason folks are struggling is that they're too dumb.
From the American Prospect's Tapped: BOTOX? Curiously, George W. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack....Could it be that the Prez got a hit of Botox to freeze his "sneer muscle" before the debate? Just curious.
posted by JFH @ 4:26 PM
<< Home